The state asserts that Gossen's representation of confidentiality was
understood to be a narrow promise to keep the content of the interview secret from
defendant's foster mother. Because that representation was not a broader promise of
confidentiality, the state maintains that the making of that representation did not induce
defendant's confession and, in light of the Miranda warnings that defendant was given
and understood, the incriminating evidence was not compelled.

Defendant would not be aided even if his constitutional claims were correct.
Any error in admitting his incriminating admissions was harmless. Under the Oregon
Constitution, an error is harmless if there is little likelihood that the error affected the
verdict. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003). Under the United States
Constitution, a constitutional error is harmless if the court concludes beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error did not contribute to the factfinder's decision. Chapman v. California,
386 US 18, 24, 87 S Ct 824, 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967).

After making oral findings on the credibility of the victim and her mother
and the weight of their testimony, the court rendered its verdict:

"Based upon what I have observed from [the testimony of the victim and
the victim's mother], I would be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of
[defendant's] guilt. However, his statements are solid corroboration of the
evidence * * *."

Thus, the trial court explicitly found that it would have convicted defendant
of the charges against him, whether or not his statements had been introduced into
evidence, because the testimony of the victim and the victim's mother had convinced the
court of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that express finding, we
conclude that any potential constitutional error in admitting defendant's statements was
harmless because it did not affect the trial court's--that is, the factfinder's--decision.
Therefore, resolution of defendant's constitutional claims is not necessary to our decision.

Affirmed.

1. Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution provides, in part, that "[n]o
person shall be * * * compelled in any criminal prosecution to testify against himself."

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part, that
"[n]o person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, in part,
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."